About your Search

20121006
20121014
STATION
CSPAN 18
CNBC 15
CSPAN2 13
FBC 12
CNN 11
CNNW 11
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
KPIX (CBS) 2
KQED (PBS) 2
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 119
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 119 (some duplicates have been removed)
in 1986 but are staring us in the face today. first, a much larger and much more dangerous deficit and second, a dramatic increase been income and inequality. old-style tax reform could make both conditions worse. but don't dismiss the old framework lightly. credit for the 1986 reform law belongs to democrats like bill bradley in the senate. just as much as to president reagan. as a member of the house back then, i not only voted for it, but i whipped the votes to make sure it passed. i was on the committee set up by dan rostenkowski to get it done. the approach made a good deal of sense at the time. then, as now, the code was littered with egregious loopholes that needed to be reformed. recall the so-called passive law schools that were in place back then. they allowed wealthy taxpayers to gain the system. someone could invest in a bowling alley and then, if the bowling alley lost money, they could take a write off many times larger than their initial money incestment of their entire income tax liability. we need to get rid of such a gimmicky tax shelter. paring these loopholes al
it but nobody's done it really since reagan. finally let's take a look at the deficit. romney is planning to cut a lot more than funding to big bird and pbs. his plans include repealing obama care, reducing foreign aide and privatizing amtrak. you may notny that's that big of a deal. i use it all the time. romney says privatizing it will save $1.3 billion. the budget is made up a lot of small things. however he does it, his goal is to reduce government spending to 20% of gdp. gdp is the biggest measure of everything we produce in society. he wants to do that by the end 6 his first term. right now government spending is at 25% of gdp. let's shed some more light on what romney's america would look like. kevin hassette is an economic adviser for mitt romney. stevon moore is an editorial writer for "the wall street journal." my good friend christine romans is the host of "your botto line" right here on cnn. folks, no party or ideological spin today, no using the name obama or the term democrat. pain the me a picture of what the world looks like under romney four years from now using specifics. you c
it comes to the fact that matter the most the jobs market debt and deficit in his easy to of this gate and we saw lot of at last night with the vice-presidential deba. i want to set the record straight. vice president biden use the word fact 26 times the hard pressed to deliver any. over tax policy bden: the only way to find $5 trillion of loopholes is to cut the mortgage deduction, health care deduction take away the ability to get a tax break to send kids to college. ryan: he is wrong about that. you can preserve the purposes for middle class taxpayers. biden: has never been done before it. ryan: it has been done a couple of times. jack kennedy, ronald reagan. biden: now your jack kennedy? gerri: that was a cheap shot. bided was wronwhen he claimed lower tax rates never had higher revenues. 1920's were slashed from 70% down a 20%. there rose 60%. kennedy cut across the board with the top rate down at 70%. tax revenues jump. ronald reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reduction and the result revenues up 99%. biden: we made sure we cut taxes for the middle-class. gerri: not even close to
't bring up the deficit. paul ryan opposes your plan. >> i know it. >> he dissented. >> and so did the president. everybody opposed -- we pissed everyone in america. nobody's doing anything for us. >> at the risk of pissing you off, what would you say to them? >> tell them we have a leaderless government and he can lead. this gentleman can't govern. he's doing politics day and night. >> erskine bowles, same question to you. if had a chance to advise obama and biden on what you want to hear about the deficit and the fiscal cliff, what would you tell them to say? are you not hearing now? >> to lead. lead from the front. just take on this enormous problem we have with economic growth. the best way to take that on is to reform the tax code, broaden the base, simplify the code, wipe out these tax expenditures and use that money to reduce rates, to encourage growth, and also to bring down the deficit. that's really attacked these entitlement problems. slow the rate of health care. make social security sustainably solvent. we can't afford to spend more in the next 17 largest countries and
to deficit reduction rather than tax breaks for the wealthiest americans. charles schumer was speaking at the national press club in washington about the fiscal cliff, those expiring tax and budget cuts that go into effect in january. this is just under an hour. >> good morning. we're starting right on time today. i want to thank you for coming. i want to take up those of use who are joining us on seemed span. i am a member of the newsmaker committee of the national press club. on behalf of the national press club, we are honored to have charles schumer. the senator will address the topic of tax reform, and i want to say this is an appropriate tax -- topic. time, theus' prevailing idea was that there were dragons just over the horizon. columbus thought he could find a new route, and today we will be exploring new routes to tax reform. the senator will talk for approximately 25 minutes, and and it we will open up the news conference to questions. senator? thank you for that timely introduction. i want to thank the national press club. here is what i said yesterday -- [speaking italian]
the official u.s. deficit this year. it is a doozy. you think your credit card bill is high? we're crunching those numbers. >>> a company will let you turn the outside of your home to a large billboard. people are scrambling to get in line. the guy behind this idea is here to explain. even when they are not, it's always about money. melissa: first, let's take a look at the day's market headlines. stocks closed out the week moving between positive and negative territory. u.s. consumer sentiment hit its highest level in five years but worries over bank profits and potential bailout for spain helped put a damper on investor optimism. the dow squeaked out two teeny, tiny points. advaed micro devices with the biggest loser on the s&p 500. the semiconductor maker cut its third quarter outlook, primarily blaming slowing global demand on weakening global economy. >>> business software company public debut isthe biggest ipo since facebook. that was back in may. >>> to our top story tonight i don't know about you but i envision peace and olive branches when i picture the european union. look at the pi
into record deficits under george bush is because we put two wars and two tax cuts on a credit card. and now governor romney wants another $5 trillion in tax cuts that he can't pay for? not if i have anything to say about it. that's not going to happen. [applause] we are not going to let this country fall backward. not now. not with so much at stake. we've got to move forward. we need to invest in small business and manufacturers who create jobs here in the united states. we need to recruit 100,000 math and science teachers, train two million workers at community college, bring down the cost of college tuition. we need to -- [cheers and applause] we need to cut our oil imports in half. create thousands more jobs in clean energy. we need to use the savings from ending the wars in iraq and afghanistan to help pay down our deficit and put people back to work doing some nation building right here at home. that's the agenda we need. that's how you strengthen the middle class. that's how you keep moving forward. that's the choice in this election. and that's why i'm running for a second term. that
the government deficit topped $1 trillion once again. the treasury says the deficit was roughly 7% of gdp and, larry, the nobel peace prize goes to the eu. the nobel committee gave the prize to the european union acknowledging the 27 blocks advancement and a peace and reconciliation and i know a lot of people think this is ridiculous, but when you think about the history there and the fact that these countries 100 years ago and what they're doing is hard, maybe it's a reminder. >> they should have given them to them 70 years ago and this is the wrong time and i'll talk about that with my pal jimmy pathkuke as. >> my only personal view is it's a ridiculous thing so i've asked cnbc contributor jim pathkukas to come back. at this moment in time with the growth of welfare states and socialism and bankruptcy and bailouts i wouldn't give the european union an award of any kind. what this k this nobel peace prize people be possibly thinking? >> given what you just said and the fact, the eu could still break apart and maybe this is like a parting gift when people are on a game show and given a partin
of the president, steve wynn was one of them saying we need to tackle the deficits this president prom -- demagogues against a $400 billion deficit now we have over a trillion. he was very negative on the debt put on over the previous 8 years, now we put on 6 trillion. i mean, you know we have not seen the policies that were promised. i think that issue is we want to make sure as a business community whoever is in the white house, that the promises are met, and we have an environment that is once against friendly to american job creation. neil: steve thank you very much. this is up the ante for tomorrow night, fox business will continue to cover the crucial debates, tomorrow. vice president one in milwaukee. joining us tomorrow is sarah palin, many, many more. and that fiscal cliff, more like a bunny slope. "new york times" and saying, ronald reagan a former budget chief said, that is wrong. you should be worried if the times says that is right, david stockton here, and only here. but first the irish calling for another round, not of beer, of oil, more drilling, how ireland is drilling
that substantial deficit reduction would be associated with a substantial reduction in interest rates that would push the economy forward at the more rapid pace. indeed, in an important part of the economic growth of the 1990's can properly be attributed to the unlocking of economic energy that was achieved by the 1993 budget measures, that led to a reduction in interest rate, increase in investment, accelerating growth, lower capital clause, further improvement in the deficit and so forth. that approach, a fiscal consolidationization that lead to substantial growth was a plausible and compelling vision for the country in 1993 1993, it has been a plausible and come compelling vision for other countries and times in places. you cannot fall very far out of the basic. with interest rates at 1.7% for ten years. with a real interest at the level where if you want to put your money or store your money with the government for as much as twentd years, you have to pay them for the privilege of having them hold your money. if they are going give you back inflation. in such an environment, the reduction in
eisenhower's progressive conservative. he believed largely in a balanced budget and he was against deficit spending but he also believed the government had a positive role to play. the interstate highway system, which eisenhower -- which was eisenhower's brainchild. [applause] more money was spent on the intraday -- interstate highway system than the new deal from 1839 to 18 to 41 with zero impact on the budget because it was paid for through gasoline taxes. [applause] thethe st. lawrence seaway connecting the great lakes, opening the great lakes to traffic again had been on the drawing board since the administration of theodore roosevelt and eisenhower -- eisenhower took, assumed the presidency in a time of mccarthyism and incredible communist witchhunt. he did it as he did so many things in the background. it was eisenhower orchestrated the army's response in the army mccarthy hearings. i'm not going to get into a contest but that stunk. and when it was over mccarthy had him vanquished but i think it was the desegregation issue perhaps in which eisenhower most often underestimated. presi
means blowing up the deficit or raising taxes on middle-class families. one or the other. pick your poison. last week, mitt romney said, there is no addition to the deficit with my tax plan. if he says it is not true, then it is not true. ok. it is true that it is not going to add to the deficit, that leaves only one option. that is asking middle-class families to foot the bill by getting rid of the deductions for owning a home, raising kids, or sending them to college. as it turned out, most folks do not like that idea either. just last week, on stage, governor romney decided that instead of changing his plan, he would pretended did not exist. what $5 trillion tax cut? i do not know anything about that tax cut. pay no attention to the tax cut under the carpet, behind the curtain. when he was asked how he would cut the deficit, he said he could make the math work by eliminating local public funding for pbs. by the way, this is not new. this is what he has been saying every time he is asked a question. we can cut out pbs. for all you moms and kids out there, do not worry. somebody is
rather than into reducing the deficit. the reality is any path forward on tax reform that promises to cut rates will either end up failing to reduce the deficit, or failing to protect the middle class from a net tax increase. >> eliot: senator schumer suggested allowing the rates to return to the prebush rate. of course republicans were quick to pounce on shumers new approach be old attacks. mitch mcconnell said, and i quote . . . for more on the mayhem in washington, i'm joined by one of your favorites bernie sanders,ent senator of vermont. thank you so much for joining us tonight. >> my pleasure. >> eliot: is chuck schumer right that we could challenge the premise that rates at the top should come down. >> of course schumer is right. what the republicans want to do and some democrats is lower the tax rates for the wealthiest people in this country at a time right now, when the effect of what the wealthiest people actually pay is the lowest in decades. and even if you manage to close some loopholes you will become neutral -- you are not going to bring in any mo
and that that, we can do that on a basis which won't increase the deficit. that was their position as i said for 99% -- >> but still his position -- >> hold on, joe, and you cannot do that as a mathematical matter without raising the tax burden on the middle class, it's not possible and all this debate about my studies and your studies is not possible, as bill clinton said at the democratic convention it's arithmetic. >> can we taxle the deficit without affecting the middle class? >> if i were vice president biden i'd put that back on the table and push it because it's too late to change your position 30 or 40 days before the election in a campaign that's gone, you know, for a year and a half. it's too late especially on an issue which you've been talking about every single day for those 18 months. it's too late. i'd take the view you can't change your position on something like that 30 days before the election, you can't change your position on repealing every fapset of obama ca facet of obama care or every facet of dodd-frank. we have a debate tonight, so to say nevermind, that doesn't wor
% gdp growth after you get to an almost 10% deficit spend of $3 trillion out of deficit stimulus, it's not robust growth. what happens in this election is important. clearly people have to get out and vote. what's going to happen on this groundwork and infrastructure of our economy over the next four years is going to be crucial for future generations. >>. no, it's not about infrastructure. it has nothing to do with infrastructure. david, it has to do with mitt romney's brilliant tax reform plan to lower the rates and broaden the base and cap the deductions. we're going to talk about that in the next segment with arthur laffer and jared bernstein. but don't you think there's potential here for a political and economic revolution? and if a pro-growth revolution comes, american entrepreneurs, american small businessmen and women are poised, they are poised to torque up the animal spirits and give this a great lift. i think people in the stock market are missing this, david goldman. >> larry, markets have never been good about predicting elections and discounted them. but the fact is, w
money, at some point something bad happens. >> 180% of gdp, their deficit. we're 9%. so always a good idea to spend more money than you're take manage to try to get out of a recession. that's where you're at right now. so what you're doing is a government telling you that there will be inflation, we're going to keep interest rates very low. what that does, it encourages corporations to invest. the corporation sitting there with $2 trillion on their balance sheets and what they have to do, they have to invest to create jobs. the government is saying you can leave it there and wait for a disaster, but if you do, it will go down in value 4% every year and, therefore, encourage people to lower the dollar. that makes products worth more. so we're trying to encourage people to build products and plants. >> we had lloyd blankfein and simpson and bowles talking about the fiscal cliff. this is what lloyd blankfein had to say. >> i'd be a buyer of the market. goldman sachs would -- we not only value company, we're a company ourselves. we would be assuming that our business would grow, that comp
not cut taxes at all if they added to the deficit at all. now, as "the washington post" reporter checks out, for two years romney has been campaigning on a tax cut that would cost around $5 trillion over ten years. romney said he would eliminate deductions and cut spending to pay for it. he never offers details. he did say he would cut funding for public broadcasting which was 0.01% of federal spending in 2012. medicaid was 0.13%. romney also spoke in favor of regulations including much of the dodd/frank bill and he repeatedly held up as a model his health care plan in massachusetts which has added center the individual mandate and on which obama care is based. romney's transformation did not happen overnight. the candidate has been reworking his stump speech. in a very smart analysis, npr pointed out romney has a five point stump speech. the first four points are actually identical to obama's stump speech. two, domestic energy, three, retraining programs, four, domestic. -- deficit reduction. on five they differ. i've long argued that romney is an intelligent man trapped in a party tha
deficit. >> big bird. >> big bird. >> thank goodness someone is getting tough on big bird. >> it is about time. >>neil: big bird is a big joke after mitt romney said he would cut funding to pbs rather than borrow money from china. the obama campaign is take on the governor romney that has the folks at "sesame street" stewing. >> one man has the guts to spoke his name. >> big bird. >> big bird. >> big bird. big. yellow. a menace to the economy. mitt romney knows it is not wall street you have to worry about, it's "sesame street." >>neil: i want that defy to voice my ad. with the debt mounting even big bird is getting nervous. >> look at this. don't worry, don't worry, everyone is printing more money. >>neil: big bird that is not so, we are not cleaning it up, we are bigging deeper. if you can't touch big bird, what can you touch? this is no joke says my guest. his new book is "who is the fairest of them all." he churns these books out so fast but this could boomerang? >>guest: this is my favorite lines in the debate, actually, when mitt romney said maybe we can live without pbs subsidies.
bernanke either, larry. >> this assumes interest rates are going to go up as deficit goes up as opposed to the fact the dollar is a currency of last resort and has kept rates chronically low. i know we've gone way far from big bird, but we probably should have anyway. >> and way over time, but it's okay. it was a good discussion. thank you both for joining us. >> thanks. >> thanks so much, everybody. we have about 40 minutes left in the program and before the closing bell sounds. we have a market down about 100 points. chb >> by the way, have you seen apple shares lower? is this stock? trouble? we're going to look at the charts on that. >> then after the bell, alcoa kicking off the earnings season tonight. chairman and ceo klaus kleinfeld breaks down the numbers with us. join me for that interview. >>> welcome back. it's been quick, the move on apple. apple shares falling into correction territory today, briefly down 10% from the highs this year. they didn't stay there long. bertha coombs has the details. over to you. >> it's been watching the technical on apple here over the last it fe
competitiveness for the economy. another important element is the public sector deficit, and the stability of the government debt . another important structural reform is being put into the spanish constitution, the financial stability law. that means that the government is going to be more able to meet their objectives and to put a degree of control on the expenses and the deficit. the government can control the expenditures from the central government. another part of the government. you have unique tools in order to make that complied. now, the government as the proper tools to address these issues. in the process of addressing the fiscal situation, we have a totally out of control deficit in year 2009. deficit exceeding 11% of its gdp. now we and the royal of reducing the deficit. the very important issue is about the capacity of the government to get to the 6% public sector deficits. as the greek of skepticism in the markets, the capacity of the government. the government is confident that we can get to this figure. if they work to get their it will be very important positive message
would call these gimmicks, the full ten year cost of this bill has of $460 billion deficit. the second has a one half trillion dollar deficit. probably the most cynical gimmick in this bill is something that we all probably agree on. we don't think we should cut doctors' 21% next year. we stop those cuts from occurring every year for the last seven years. we all call this the toxics. well, according to your numbers it cost her her $71 billion. it was in the first iteration of all these bills. because it was a big price tag and made the score look bad, may look like a deficit, that provision was taken out and has been going on in stand-alone legislation. ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. hiding spending does not reduce spending. and so when you take a look of this is just as not add up. let's finish with the cost curve. we bending the cost curve down or up? well, if you look at your own chief actuary of medicare revenue up. he is time we are going up $222 billion, adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have. and so when you take a look
, in 2010 a bipartisan federal commission unveiled the plan to cut the nation's deficit by $4 trillion through a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. the plan was never voted on in congress. do you agree with any or all with what the commission came up with? what other efforts do you think the country needs to take on to cut the country's debt, which now exceeds $16 trillion? >> debt and our deficit are very important issues that we need to tackle and they're a matter of national security. and this is one of the starkest contrasts between congresswoman bono mack and myself. you see, congresswoman bono mack wants to put the deficit and the burden of our debt on the shoulders of our seniors, our middle class and our students. by turning medicare into a private voucher system and charging our seniors $6,000 a year for their health care costs on average, by cutting pell grants and stafford loans who rely on those for their college education and she's voted to increase taxes on the middle class through the ryan plan. all of this in order to keep tax breaks for multi-millionaires and tax
years later left with massive deficits. during his time in the senate, the national debt went up by $16,000. he conceded that spending was a problem in the senate. we also have people who need to know how to work together. i learned to cut crime bills and the economy. my opponent said his job was to not democrats softly. he took this similar position in the senate, fighting efforts led by the then-senior virginia senator. when someone who will fight and that is what i will do is your next to none state senator. >> if mr. allen, your opening statement. >> thank you. it's much better future than what we are having to endure these days. that is why i put forward a detailed plan. my blueprint for america to get an economy and stronger jobs. the question is which one of us can be accounted upon. you may have read an article that was comparing our two governorships. the call me when the most accomplished modern governors with major improvements in public education, safety, welfare reform, and i described how worked with leaders in the other party to get results for the people. the bad economy
spending cuts and we need to be talking about increasing revenues. it takes both to close the deficit. we both submitted our economic proposals to the boston globe. they were sent out four independent economic analysis. what the independent economists found is that i was 67% more effective at cutting the deficit then senator brown. why? because i am willing to make cuts. i am willing to make substantial cuts. i support substantial cuts. i also believe we have to raise revenues. that is what it will take to get serious about our deficit. i truly believe on this one, this is about our children and grandchildren. we cannot leave it to our grandchildren to pay off our debts. >> great question. we are in the $16 trillion national debt. we are in another trillion dollar deficit. you cannot keep borrowing to pay our bills. when we are talking about cutting military spending, we have party cut in half a trillion dollars. that affects many people in this room and people watching. i have been battling as a member of the arms services committee to try to find the resources to protect our men and wom
claimed that you can reduce our deficit through tax increases alone. he's never said that. the president and vice president have said we need to take the ballad propose, using the kind of frachlwork that bipartisan groups have suggested. whereas republicans have been very clear not one more penny, even from people like mitt romney to reduce the deficit. so our point isn't that you can increase taxes on wealthier people, and do the whole thing on the deficit. our point of review is that they should be asked to contribute a little more. go back to paying what they were in the clinton administration, when the economy was roaring. that's what we're saying. we support a combination of additional targeted cuts. but also revenue for folks who are doing very well to help reduce the deficit. because if you don't have one penny more from very wealthy people it means you sock it to everybody else. seniors on medicare pay more. less investment in our kids' education. and that's exactly the romney/ryan budget does. itzhaks it to the middle class and seniors, in order to give these tax breaks to very
of this bill is a $460 billion deficit. the second cost has a $1.7 trillion deficit. the most cynical give a guy in this bill is something we probably all agree on -- we do not think we should cut doctors' 21% next year. we stopped those cuts from occurring every year the last seven years. according to your numbers, this costs $371 billion. it was in the first iteration of all these bills, but because it was a big price tag and made the score look bad, that provision was taken out, and it has been going on in stand-alone legislation. but ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. hiding spending does not reduce spending. when you take a look at all of this, it just does not add up. i will finish with the cost curve. are we bending the cost curve down or up? if you look in your own chief actuary at medicare, we are bending it up. he is claiming we are going up $221 billion, adding more to the fiscally unstable situation we have. when you look at this, it is really deeper than deficits or the budget gimmicks or the actuarial analysis. there really is a difference
for the economy. another important element is a private set her deficit. wow, another important reform has been to put into the constitution, a financial stability law, that means that the government is going to be more able to meet their objectives and to put a degree on the expand says and the deficit of the regional suspense, which is part of the issue because the expenditures from the central government, another part of the government in which you have tools in order to make them comply with your objectives. at the government has proper tools. and in the process of the fiscal situation as we see in this chart, we have a totally out-of-control deficits in the year 2009 with a deficit exceeding 11% of the gdp and now we are to reducing the step thursday of the very important issue and what the markets wonder if the capacity of the government to get to the 6.3%. there is a degree in the market and the capacity, but the government is confident that she can get this figure and i think it would be a very important message for the market. if it's able to comply with the objective of direction and
is bound to kick the can on a decision about cutting spending, and deficit control, change the can. come up with a condition for not making a deal that is actually palatable and not horrible for the economy like the currents situation we have. tell me how that would happen. are there enough people like you and those who you are trying network with who are still in office in washington to hammer out a more perfect compromise? >> i think those kind of people are in the house and the senate. i think they are talking with each other. but the problem is, ali, they are not getting support from their own leaders in the congress, republicans or democrats. they are not getting support from the white house. they are not getting support from their party base who insist on 100% solution in their favor. and the american people, the common sense americans that i think are in the great majority have to rise up because that's the missing part of the airplane is the middle. the wings are flapping and make being their voices heard but the middle is not. that's got to happen because we got get behind people l
to have a trillion dollar deficit. he said, i haven't done anything yet. >> we cannot keep looking our children in the eye knowing that we are going to give them a diminished future because we are spending their money today. it's a very simple idea. mitt romney and i are going to bring it to washington. we have got to spending money we don't have. we must cut spending. we must get a balanced budget. we must get this debt under control. >> this thursday night, congressman paul ryan and vice president joe biden will face off in a debate. you can watch and engauge with c-span with our life debate preview starting at 7:00 eastern. your actions, calls, e-mails, and tweets at 10:30 following our live coverage on c-span, c-span radio, and online at c-span.org. >> sunday a debate in the u.s. senate between linda mcmahon, republican, and representative chris murphy, democrat. รบ >> i will not raise taxes on middle income families. >> now he says five weeks before the election, his big, bold idea, is never mind. >> it's arithmetic. >> sunday watch the entire debate at noon eastern time, here on
proven to represent the opposite of peace. the eu severs from an extensive democratic deficit with violations of human rights along increasing social inequality. that stigma from the norwegian peace council, tariq ali. >> amy, the norwegian peace council has criticized the peace prize in the past. in fact, alfred nobel specified the peace prize should only be given to those who are actively promoting the cause of peace. which the eu does not do, either in the middle east -- for instance, it has backed and supported everything the israelis have done as far as the occupation of palestine is concerned. it has tried to isolate the palestinian government in the past. it has carried on supporting nato -- it is part of it, and and the war in afghanistan. it is not popular even among many swedish and norwegian members of parliament. i was there many years ago when they give it to obama. about 10,000 people demonstrated against that because obama had just said he was good escalate the war in afghanistan and pakistan. so the peace committee itself now, the nobel prize committee, has bec
income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle class. it's math. it is arithmetic. megyn: now, this professor at princeton, upon whom the obama campaign has based its charge since then, they are citing this professor, harry rosen, to say that romney's plan is going to pinch the middle class -- he has come out and said, i have never said that and i do not believe that. joining me now is lou dobbs, host of "lou dobbs tonight" and a syndicated radio host. it's not often that you see a princeton guide defending a candidate, but he is saying that i am not saying, this will not pinch the middle class. why is that? be. lou: based on a set of assumptions, it is a result of the tax reductions and the marginal tax rate, which would be 20% from top to bottom. megyn: romney is going to cut 20% for everyone? lou: the top 20% will go to 28. and he said, what are you talking about? they stripped away the tax policy center -- which is a left wing outfit. megyn: let's just keep on that, because this is the other thing -- the tax policy center says the middle class
is hitting back with new spots attacking the president's record on spending. >> obama's four deficits are the four largest in history. >> reporter: with the debate performance showing up in the polls, it's putting more importance on the next two debates to come and looking ahead to tonight, both president obama and mitt romney are campaigning in ohio this evening. the president in columbus across the state, mitt romney near youngstown, one in the state and he will be joined by new jersey governor chris christy. >>> you heard it there and that is probably one of the most quoted clips. >> mitt romney sharing his desire to cut funding for pbs and its beloved character, big bird, of course. the obama campaign is out with a new tv ad going out with the line. >> gluttons of greed and the even genius who towered over them. one man has the guts to speak his name. >> big bird, big third, big bird. >> it's me, big bird. >> big, yellow, a menace to our economy. mitt romney knows it's not wall street you have to worry about, it'ses is me street. >> i'm going to stop the subsidy to pbs. >> reporte
macro-approach in history and driving rates up across southern europe and budget deficits that are getting worse and worse. i don't see where mitt romney's argument has traction. it seems to me that the stimulus of the policy, traditional economics that barack obama has followed it seems to be working. neil, what am i missing here? >> romney has a point. things could be better. i don't know if they could have been made better, and that stimulus should have been bigger and if it has to do with the problems in the houseing market. there is a big target on the back of obama because of failed housing. there are not that many new arguments that romney can hang his hat on but that's an area that we have not seen exploited. >> i think you're right. if there has been one enormous failure policy, it's the mortgage and the number of homeowners who are underwater, meaning that their they owe more than the value of their house. mitt romney does not talk about that because his answer is none existent. >> you have these made up controversies because they're so close on many of the issue
're facing absolutely massive deficits. this administration has chosen to ignore it. the president has failed, put forth a plan to deal with those deficits and if everyone believes everything is coming up roses, perhaps the vice- president should join me as i travel around the country and speak to people. people in pennsylvania are not terribly thrilled with what happening in the economy. people in youngstown, ohio have stores that are boarded up because the economy is not doing well. it's not only the old industries that are not -- in san jose, calif., they are complaining because they cannot export their high-quality goods to japan and other countries. people in the northwest and in the state of oregon are complaining about what's happening to the timber industry and agriculture industry. things are not as great as the administration is wanting us to believe in their television commercials. my feeling quite frankly is i have enough experience to see the problems, address them, and make the tough decision that level of people with reference to this problem. >> despite the historic aspects of
of $3 trillion in deficit reductions, which is some combination of tax revenue and spending cuts. therein lies the problem. we have a situation where democrats have been loath to to target the deep spending cuts to domestic programs an impediment programs that would be needed to cut a deal, -- entitlement programs that would be needed to cut a deal, and republicans are loath to consider the idea of any sort of new tax revenue that could be added to the picture. so, how do you put this deal together in no way that makes a policy sense, but also would satisfy the political differences on either side? it really is difficult. if you look to the projections, people say if we do not do anything, this would be great for the nation put the deficit, because tax revenues would automatically go up, spending would go down, and our national deficit would nearly be cut in half. that is a great outcome. yes, it is, but the other hand, the economy, which is in a fragile state, would decline, and we've seen projections of a 0.5% reduction in gdp growth which experts say would put the economy in a
campaign stop in new hampshire was talking about the threat of deficit spending. it's probably something you might hear tonight at the vice- presidential debate. here's a preview. [video clip] >> we cannot keep borrowing 36 cents of every dollar our government spends. we cannot keep the federal reserve doing what. we cannot keep looking our children in the eye, knowing that we are going to give them a diminished future because we are spending their money today. it's a very simple idea. mitt romney and i will bring it to washington. we've got to stop spending money we don't have. we must cut spending. we must get this balanced budget. we must get this debt under control. this debt not only hurts our economy today with the threat of higher interest rates and a losing a dollar and much higher tax rates. we know that we are giving the students here at this academy, our children and grandchildren, a lower standard of living. we've never done that in this country before. host: vice-presidential candidate paul ryan in new hampshire at a recent event. here's what you might hear from the vice-pre
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 119 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)